The paleolatitude distribution of paleoclimate proxies and contintential landmass is an important constraint for modeling and understanding paleoclimate. True polar wander (TPW), which can produce large, potentially rapid changes in paleolatitude, is a necessary component in paleolatitude reconstructions. Prior workers, e.g., van Hinsbergen et al. (2015), have created paleolatitude frameworks from global continental apparent polar wander paths (APWPs) drawn from running means of continental paleomagnetic studies (e.g., Torsvik et al. 2012). These are limited by the precision of the running mean, poor age resolution amplified by use of a running mean, and the uncertainties and the unknowns of ancient plate motion circuits. In particular, the Pacific Plate is linked to the global plate circuit through Antarctica. Early paleomagnetic tests of this circuit (Suarez & Molnar, 1980; Gordon & Cox 1980; Acton & Gordon 1994) indicated inconsistency of the circuit with paleomagnetic data such that the reconstructed Pacific plate did not move as far north as indicated by its indigenous paleomagnetic data. Some later work has asserted, however, that updated paleomagnetic data and plate reconstructions no longer indicate the inconsistency found before (Doubrovine & Tarduno 2008). Important progress has also been made in estimating the motion between East and West Antarctica from seafloor data (e.g. Granot & Dyment 2018). We revisit these questions here. We test the predictions of the global paleolatitude framework at points across the Pacific Plate using a well-constrained observed APWP constructed from indigenous Pacific plate data from skewness analysis of marine magnetic anomalies (Schouten & Cande 1976; Cox & Gordon 1980) and locations of paleo-equatorial sediments (Moore et al. 2004; Woodworth & Gordon 2018), which uniquely determine Pacific Plate paleolatitude independent of plate circuits. The misfit between the observed and predicted paleolatitude varies with longitude across the plate and is as large as ~10±3°, with the largest misfit occurring between 40 and 60 Ma. Implications of this discrepancy will be discussed and an improved paleolatitude framework for the Pacific plate will be presented.